Rick Kingslan wrote:
Add to that - SATA is not for the desktop only. Check out some of the SAN
coming out from most vendors, EMC included. Those drives and connections
look a lot like SATA to me.
We have SATA bricks attached to our SAN. They have some issues that, in
my opinion, make them not quite 'enterprise' ready. A different vendor
just dropped off a rack full of disks (SATA and FC) for us to test as
part of a NAS investigation. The SATA based arrays are slower than the
FC based arrays. Not as much as they used to be but still significantly
slower. That said - we haven't moved anything real important to the SATA
volumes yet. Mainly archives and temp storage for data reprocessing
right now.
al
Rick [msft]
--
Posting is provided "AS IS", and confers no rights or warranties ...
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ASB
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 7:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended for
desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depends on the size of the "enterprise"
SATA has its place in the server segments of smaller orgs for sure.
It's not too long ago that Windows and Intel processors were considered "not
designed for the enterprise"...
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 11/7/05, Al Mulnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's a desktop user? The apple desktop?
I don't have a problem with SATA (an upgrade from PATA) if used as
designed.
It's designed for desktop storage. Not that it can't be adjusted to
server/enterprise, but it's price point and architecture are intended
for desktops (i.e. cheap but not as reliable as a shared resource).
Used appropriately, I'm quite happy with it. But it's intended to be
cheap and replaceable.
Cheap, fast, reliable - pick two (or something like that ;)
That shouldn't last if history is any indication, but for now I'll try
not to build too many centrally required applications on that
technology unless I can put a lot of abstraction in front of it (large
pools that aren't bothered by the loss of several components at a
time.)
From: "Rob MOIR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 18:36:10 -0000
I've deployed SATA for storage of large files in Apple XRaid units in
a Raid 5+1 config, and so far so good. Ask me in 3 years if I'm still
just as happy ;-) but it was the only way to give the user what they
wanted inside the budget we had.
One advantage of the XRaid is that it's fitted out from the get go to
use SATA disks and the only reason you'd ever have to do anything to
it is to replace a drive that you already know has gone bad.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Al Mulnick
Sent: Mon 07/11/2005 17:34
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
<silly no-hair-color alert>
SATA == Desktop drives.
They weren't originally concepted to be enterprise class storage. I
see them as being back-engineered to be used this way, but most of
what I've seen has been to deploy them as a JBOD in situations where
you can absorb the continuous loss of hardware and not impact
performance and availability.
Typically in pools of disk and hsm solutions (what is it that hsm
is called now? ILM? :)
If you plan to deploy DAS solutions (internal or external), SATA is
not likely the way to go right now. You may want to wait a bit
longer if the data is important.
For large pools of inexpensive disks, SATA might be worthwhile to
investigate if you have a large loading bay, a good support
agreement, and close access to the highway.
-ajm
From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:19 -0800
<Stupid blonde alert>
I personally have SATA experience in the tower/desktop world but
none in the rack units. Are the physical connections any stronger
in the rack world?
I like SCSI and IDE not only for their proven track record [server
and desktop respectively] but because the dang cables don't get
knocked off each time I reach into the case. Those cable
connections on the back of the SATA drives are a little worrying.
I've accidentally bumped the connection off my workstation at home
twice while adding the Happauge
card
and what not.
In SBSland early on we had issues with them getting loaded up, if
they
are
underpowered, we're seeing a bit of bottlenecks, and as one of the
SBS support gang said out of Mothership Los Colinas, if your vendor
won't guarantee that equipment for 3 years, do you really want to
put that data on that device?
So far the SATAs that we have running around in SBSland servers are
okay, but I'll report back in another 2 years and let you know.
I can't speak for the Dell rack stuff, but the Dell tower
stuff...lemme just say I'm glad Brian steered me towards HP.
Rob MOIR wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al
Mulnick
Sent: 07 November 2005 15:13
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Hardware Suggestions
Bottom line, I would guess that two HP 360's (SCSI; I haven't
been made comfortable with SATA reliability yet) or 140's with
1GB of memory each would be more than needed based on those
parameters.
I'm glad to hear someone else say this. SATA can work but you need
to look closely at what you're buying and what the manufacturer
recommends.
If the manufacturer doesn't trust their own products for the sort
of
24*7 hammering you often get in a server then why bet against
them? Who are we to assume we know a product better than the
people who designed and built it?
If you virtualize anything on top of that, some other
considerations would be needed of course. (or Dell or IBM equivalent
of course).
I'd still personally be uncomfortable with virtualising all my
DCs, even onto different physical virtual server hosts, I just
don't believe in adding extra layers of complexity to fundamental
network services if I can help it.
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
--
Al Lilianstrom
CD/CSS/CSI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
